[lit-ideas] Re: Do You Have a Moral Urgency?
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:49:47 -0700 (PDT)
Not for Phil's sake, but maybe for the sake of the
others here...
--- Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Omar:
>
> "Simply, there is no evidence for the claims that
> Hezbollah was using
> civilians as human shields ..."
>
> Hezbollah has been using suburbs to store their
> weapons and fire rockets
> into Israel. They have also been using these
> suburbs as cover from the
> IDF. So, the Israelis have, in general, stayed out
> of towns in order to
> reduce casualties on both sides while Hezbollah has
> tried to draw them
> into towns, in order to increase casualties on both
> sides.
*Many of Israel's military bases are placed in urban
areas. A famous one is in Ibn-Gvirol street in
Tel-Aviv; there is also a large base within walking
distance from the Old City in Beer-Sheba etc. The 12
Israeli soldiers who were killed in Kfar Giladi were
placed among civilians.
As for Israel being slow to send ground troops, the
reason was that they wanted to avoid the casualties to
their troops. Instead, they resorted to aerial
bombings, even though they knew fully well that this
would cause a high civilian toll.
> Omar:
>
> "Also, it is a fact that the Hezollah had killed
> more Israeli soldiers
> than civilians, whereas Israel killed many more
> civlians than Hezbollah
> fighters."
>
> Since Hezbollah fighters do not wear uniforms and do
> not fight as a
> unit, it isn't at all clear who among the dead are
> civilian and who is
> Hezbollah. That is the point of Hezbollah using
> civilians as human
> shields.
*If you are thus willing to abandon the distinction
between soldiers and civilians - they are all
potential terrorists etc., even women and children -
why maintain the distinction in the case of Israelis ?
After all, most Israelis spend a good portion of their
lives in military service.
> Omar:
>
> "Further, even the IDF did not claim that it was
> targetting only the
> Hezbollah fighters; it said repeatedly in public
> that it was targetting
> infrastructure such as roads, bridges, factories,
> installations etc."
>
> Since the discussion was about casualties, there was
> no need to discuss
> the destruction of infrastructure.
*This seems rather like an example of not arguing in a
good faith.
Since Hezbollah
> uses the civilian
> population as a shield, there is no way the Israelis
> can be certain what
> is or is not a Hezbollah asset. Further, the
> destruction of bridges and
> roads was intended to restrict the re-supply of
> rockets from Iran
> through Syria.
*If targetting Lebanon's civilian infrastructure is
moral because it could potentially be used for
military purposes, then is the reverse also true ? How
were the sites in Tyre and Beirut that were hit usable
for military purposes ?
The rockets that were being used to
> target Israeli
> civilians.
*There is plenty of evidence that Hezbollah did not
want, and in fact sought to avoid, civilian
casualties. It did not hit downtown Haifa even though
it could do so. It did not hit Tel Aviv even though it
had 200 rockets capable of reaching Tel Aviv. See:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cook08092006.html
> Omar:
>
> "As to the claim that: 'Israel sent in its military
> with rules of
> engagement that required a minimum of civilian
> casualties, thereby
> endangering the lives of its soldiers' this is
> complete nonsense."
>
> Nope. On a number of occasions Israeli commandos
> were inserted into
> Lebanon to attack specific targets with a minimum of
> casualties.
*Don't know about any commandos. However, kindly see
this for an informed discussion of Israel's caution
about civilians:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/03/1344244
If the
> Israelis had used the same rules of engagement as
> that of Hezbollah,
> they would have simply levelled whole buildings and
> towns regardless of
> how many civilians died, thereby reducing the risks
> to their own
> soldiers and increasing Lebanese casualties.
*Here you assuming the claim you are ostensibly trying
to prove, in other words, the argument is circular.
The
> greater number of
> casualties among Israel's fighting force is evidence
> of the lengths
> Israel was willing to go to protect Lebanese
> civilian casualties. The
> minimal number of casualties among Hezbollah
> fighters is evidence of
> their willingness to sacrifice the lives of Lebanese
> civilians.
*That is your interpretation. Mine is that Hezbollah
did not specially seek to kill civilians, and maybe
even tried to avoid it, whereas Israel either
deliberately sought to inflict civilian casualties or,
at the very least, did not give a damn.
O.K.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
